947 resultados para 6-60
Resumo:
"21 November 1980."
Resumo:
Includes index.
Resumo:
Includes index.
Resumo:
Includes index.
Resumo:
Includes index.
Resumo:
"January 1972."
Resumo:
"August 1968."
Resumo:
"February 1969."
Resumo:
"9 May 1980."
Resumo:
Includes indexes.
Resumo:
"May 1971."
Resumo:
Purpose: Silicone hydrogel contact lenses (CLs) are becoming increasingly popular for daily wear (DW), extended wear (EW) and continuous wear (CW), due to their higher oxygen transmissibility compared to hydrogel CLs. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and subjective performance of asmofilcon A (Menicon Co., Ltd), a new surface treated silicone hydrogel CL, during 6-night EW over 6 months (M). Methods: A prospective, randomised, single-masked, monadic study was conducted. N=60 experienced DW soft CL wearers were randomly assigned to wear either asmofilcon A (test: Dk=129, water content (WC)=40%, Nanogloss surface treatment) or senofilcon A (control: Dk=103, WC=38%, PVP internal wetting agent, Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care) CLs bilaterally for 6 M on an EW basis. A PHMB-preserved solution (Menicon Co., Ltd) was dispensed for CL care. Evaluations were conducted at CL delivery and after 1 week (W), 4 W, 3 M and 6 M of EW. At each visit, a range of objective and subjective clinical performance measures were assessed. Results: N=50 subjects (83%) successfully completed the study, with the majority of discontinuations due to loss to follow-up (n=3) or moving away/travel (n=5). N=2 subjects experienced adverse events; n=1 unilateral red eye with asmofilcon A and n=1 asymptomatic infiltrate with senofilcon A. There were no significant differences in high or low contrast distance visual acuity (HCDVA or LCDVA) between asmofilcon A and senofilcon A; however, LCDVA decreased significantly over time with both CL types (p<0.05). The two CL types did not vary significantly with respect to any of the objective and subjective measures assessed (p>0.05); CL fitting characteristics and CL surface measurements were very similar and mean bulbar and limbal redness measures were always less than grade 1.0. Superior palpebral conjunctival injection showed a statistically, but not clinically, significant increase over time with both CL types (p<0.05). Corneal staining did not vary significantly between asmofilcon A and senofilcon A (p>0.05), with low median gradings of less than 0.5 observed for all areas assessed. There were no solution-related staining reactions observed with either CL type. The asmofilcon A and senofilcon A CLs were both rated highly with respect to overall comfort, with medians of 14 or 15 hours of comfortable lens wearing time per day reported at each of the study visits (p>0.05). Conclusions: Over 6 months of EW, the asmofilcon A and senofilcon A CLs performed in a similar manner with respect to visual acuity, ocular health and CL performance measures. Some changes over time were observed with both CL types, including reduced LCDVA and increased superior palpebral injection, which warrant further investigation in longer-term EW studies. Asmofilcon A appeared to be equivalent in performance to senofilcon A.
Resumo:
Background: There is a need to better describe and understand the prevalence of breast cancer treatment-related adverse effects amenable to physical therapy and rehabilitative exercise. Prior studies have been limited to single issues and lacked long term follow-up. The Pulling Through Study provides data on prevalence of adverse effects in breast cancer survivors followed over six years. Methods: A population-based sample of Australian women (n=287) diagnosed with invasive, unilateral breast cancer was followed for a median of 6.6 years and prospectively assessed for treatment-related complications at 6, 12, 18 months, and 6 years post-diagnosis. Assessments included post-surgical complications, skin or tissue reaction to radiation therapy, upper-body symptoms, lymphedema, 10% weight gain, fatigue, and upper-quadrant function. The proportion of women with positive indication for each complication and one or more complication was estimated using all available data at each time point. Women were only considered to have a specific complication if they reported the highest two levels of the Likert scale for self-reported issues. Results: At six years post-diagnosis over 60% of women experienced one or more side effects amenable to rehabilitative intervention. The proportion of women experiencing 3 or more side effects decreased throughout follow-up, while the proportion experiencing no side effects remained stable around 40% from 12 months to six years. Weight gain was the only complication to increase in prevalence over time. Conclusion: These data support the development of a multi-disciplinary prospective surveillance approach for the purposes of managing and treating adverse effects in breast cancer survivors.